click to show more information

click to hide/show information About your Search

20130201
20130228
Search Results 0 to 6 of about 7 (some duplicates have been removed)
: for the first time, pentagon leaders said today they had supported arming the rebels in syria. defense secretary leon panetta and general martin dempsey chair of the joint chiefs said they made that recommendation to president obama. panetta told a senate hearing that, in the end, the president decided against sending in arms. instead, the u.s. has provided only humanitarian aid to the rebels. secretary panetta also defended the military's response to the attack on the u.s. consulate in benghazi, libya. the assault killed ambassador chris stevens and three other americans. panetta testified there'd been no specific warning of an imminent attack, so u.s. forces were too far away to respond. >> the united states military, as i've said, is not and frankly should not be a 911 service capable of arriving on the scene within minutes to every possible contingency around the world. the u.s. military has neither the resources nor the responsibility to have a firehouse next to every u.s. facility in the world. >> sreenivasan: republican senator john mccain of arizona argued the military could have deploye
it calls "non- lethal" assistance. and with panetta's departure from the pentagon today, plus clinton's last week and petraeus's resignation in 2012, general dempsey is the only known remaining advocate of arming the rebels still in a top advisory role. i'm joined who served in the obama administration state departments and is now dean of the school of advanced international studies at johns hopkins university. and andrew tabler, a senior fellow at the washington institute for near east policy. what were the main schools of thought. how did the camps break down in this argument inside the administration on what to do about syria, andrew? >> basically you have a discussion about syria about all the different options. and it really comes down to this. the white house was hedgingment they really did not want to get involved in syria. they have a firm policy to stay out of the middle east and would like to pull back. at the same time the agencies that deal with syria and the problem there, which is growing and mushrooming, the state department, cia and to a certain extent the department o
you briefly, if you would, because given the kind of changes you are talk pentagon, people paying online, for example. where is this headed? does the american public have to get used to a lesser service and perhaps at some point the end of the postal service? >> no, not at all. we think the future is very bright, as long as you take the steps to get the financein order. our plan-- our plan has us getting back in the black and paying the debt down. now, will there be changes? absolutely. some of the changes we discussed already. we have already made plenty of changes. since the year 2000, this organization, the postal service has reducedly the head count-- head count, payroll, not jobs or job descriptions, payroll-- by 305,000 employees, 193,000 since 2008. we have-- our people do a great job. they're very productive. we have done anything and everything in our power to try to catch up to the loss that we've got in volume. people say, suggest we raise prices dramatically. that chase more volume away. we are trying to take a very business-like approach. we think it's a win-win. ever
to that point, all of a sudden we've got 3,000 dead americans, the trade towers are taken out, the pentagon's been hit. if it hadn't been for the folks on 93 they'd have taken out the white house or the capitol on washington, d.c. worst attack in our history. worse than pearl harbor by far. and it was our job to make certain it didn't happen again. we were concerned for a couple of rps, partly because the expectation was there would be a follow on attack, nearly everybody believed it. but we also received intelligence that al qaeda was trying to get their hands on deadlier weapons. >> rose: do you regret nothing about the aftermath in terms of how we -- >> regarding 9/11? >> rose: everything that we did and that you were and the president were at the center of the response to 9/11. look back and say "we regret nothing"? >> that's my view. >> rose: none? >> correct. >> rose: you know this has been debated, too. >> sure. >> rose: were we prepared for the consequences after saddam was overthrown? >> well, that was the second proposition. you asked me about the aftermath of 9/11, the policies w
Search Results 0 to 6 of about 7 (some duplicates have been removed)